Jonathan Tiernan-Locke written to by UCI, asked to explain blood values

[thehog]

OK. Please clarify whether you think the Bosman ruling brought about the introduction of transfer fees to European or whether transfer fees predate Bosman by over 100 years?

You have previously claimed the former whilst subsequently agreeing with my assertion of the latter. As the two situations are mutually exclusive, it's hard to understand what you actually think!

As stated. The clubs pre Bosman would trade players etc. without concern for the player. The clubs agreed the price and handed over the player and pre-existing contract.

Post-Bosman it was the first time a player (not club) succeeded in the courts that a club could not inhibit a players right to earn money. It clearly defined the club as an "employer" and the player as a "worker". Very similar to what regular employees have. Office workers are not tied into a company. They can leave at "free will" as long as they serve their notice period.

Employment contracts are not slavey! this isn't 1750!

 

[andy1234]

Modern sporting contract already have 'restraint of trade' clauses built in.

Contracts are vey important. Ensures everyone is compensated if a player moves on.

If Wiggins hadn't got 4th at the Tour Garmin would be we'll within their right to hold on to him.

In this case Wiggins would apply "restraint of trade" not Sky.

Separate player and club.

I guess this is the point where you have realised that you have no idea about the Bosman ruling?

No problem, you are off the hook. Talking sh** is not a crime.

 

[thehog]

What does this have to do with JTLs doping?

Because JTL had been training with Sky since April 12 and was told by DB he'd lead the WC team since that time frame DB knew what he was buying.

He was using a Sky issued SRM at the WC so it's clear JTL had all the required testing. Seeing JTL was on EPO at this time and hungover and using the SRM DB knew the new doping wonder kid would fit right in.

Sky got their man and at 400k.

 

[thehog]

I guess this is the point where you have realised that you have no idea about the Bosman ruling?

No problem, you are off the hook. Talking sh** is not a crime.

Feel free to discuss the point rather than lowering yourself to childish put downs.

Often I find when one can't intelligently argue a point they become all aggressive and angry. Just like you are now.

Stick to the topic.

 

[BroDeal]

That article talks about legal action that Garmin might have taken. You were talking about Sky threatening to sue Garmin, to persuade then to let Wiggo.

All Garmin could have done would be to take out a court order compelling Wiggo to fulfill his contract or an injunction to stop him riding for Sky in 2010. And would you want to be paying an unmotivated Wiggins to ride for you?

No. It is plain as day in that article as well as what JV said at other times. Sky was threatening legal action based on British labor law, which people here have talked about being problematic when it comes to sports' contracts. That is why JV in that article was complaining about national laws overriding UCI rules. JV did not have the resources to fight it, so he took the money. Sky gave him a silver or lead proposition.

At the same time Sky was extorting Garmin to get Wiggins, Brailsfraud was conniving with Ben Swift break his contract with Katusha. The lies started early with Team Sky. Even before the team was set up, Brailsfraud was telling the press a whopper about only talking to Swift because he thought Swift was a free agent who was not bound by his contract to Katusha.

 

[andy1234]

Feel free to discuss the point rather than lowering yourself to childish put downs.

Often I find when one can't intelligently argue a point they become all aggressive and angry. Just like you are now.

Stick to the topic.

Feel free to discuss, how the Bosman ruling, has any inflence on a player transferring mid contract?

If you raise something as a discussion point, you will get discussion
If you raise something as fact, when it clearly is not, expect ridicule.

 

[BroDeal]

It is clear from the last few pages that the Sky apologists have no idea what they are talking about. thehog is making a clear argument about the importance and fallout of the Bosman ruling but the usual suspects have not said a damned thing to refute how the ruling transformed the market.

 

[andy1234]

It is clear from the last few pages that the Sky apologists have no idea what they are talking about. thehog is making a clear argument about the importance and fallout of the Bosman ruling but the usual suspects have not said a damned thing to refute how the ruling transformed the market.

Can you not read?
The discussion taking place is all about how the Bosman ruling would apply to this case.

Let me give you a clue....Not at all.
If you want to discuss European employment law in general, then fire away.

 

[the sceptic]

It is clear from the last few pages that the Sky apologists have no idea what they are talking about. thehog is making a clear argument about the importance and fallout of the Bosman ruling but the usual suspects have not said a damned thing to refute how the ruling transformed the market.

Skybots have always been clueless, but sky have become so ridiculous lately that its impossible to defend them anymore.

Thus, all they have left is trolling and vortexing.

 

[BroDeal]

Let me give you a clue....Not at all.
If you want to discuss European employment law in general, then fire away.

This is what is known as the "Stick your fingers in your ears and yell, 'Na na na na na." tactic for winning arguments.

Maybe it is just me, but I would rather take the opinion of the owner of the team that was coerced by the bamboozlers at Sky than some crackpot on the Internet who cannot put together a cogent argument.

 

[thehog]

It is clear from the last few pages that the Sky apologists have no idea what they are talking about. thehog is making a clear argument about the importance and fallout of the Bosman ruling but the usual suspects have not said a damned thing to refute how the ruling transformed the market.

Correct and the in the same way BSkyB wrestled premiership football away from the FA so it could televise the sport it had the legal power to force Garmin's hand.

Vaughters would have lost in the courts and in the UK the losing party pays both sides legal fees.

Sky had the legal might to do as they pleased. And they did.

 

[andy1234]

This is what is known as the "Stick your fingers in your ears and yell, 'Na na na na na." tactic for winning arguments.

Maybe it is just me, but I would rather take the opinion of the owner of the team that was coerced by the bamboozlers at Sky than some crackpot on the Internet who cannot put together a cogent argument.

If anyone were arguing with Vaughters, you might have a point.
Unfortunately its just the Hog.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Back to JTL...has a date been set for the hearing? Or will this case drag on and on?

UKAD opened the case. They are actually pretty good at keeping such things confidential (as they should be) until the issue is resolved.

They will make an announcement in due course, and if found guilty, after the chance to appeal, the findings of the committee will be publicly available on the website. (not necessarily all the evidence but the summary of what the decision is and why)

 

[BroDeal]

If anyone were arguing with Vaughters, you might have a point.
Unfortunately its just the Hog.

What Vaughters said was my point. Now we can move on since the Sky Defense League has accepted that I was right.

 

[andy1234]

What Vaughters said was my point. Now we can move on since the Sky Defense League has accepted that I was right.

Feel free to move on.
As far as I can recal, nobody was challenging your statement, but if you want to claim your medal, go ahead.

Meanwhile, if its OK with you, maybe the hog can pull his own pants up?

 

[martinvickers]

It is clear from the last few pages that the Sky apologists have no idea what they are talking about. thehog is making a clear argument about the importance and fallout of the Bosman ruling but the usual suspects have not said a damned thing to refute how the ruling transformed the market.

Please. Stop digging. Hog and you are simply wrong on this.

From the Bosman ruling itself -

"The answer to the first question must therefore be that Article 48 of the Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a professional footballer who is a national of one Member State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer, training or development fee."

leading to the judgement...

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Cour d'Appel, Liège, by judgment of 1 October 1993, hereby rules:

1. Article 48 of the EEC Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a professional footballer who is a national of one Member State may not, on the expiry of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer, training or development fee.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61993CJ0415:EN:HTML#MO

My emphases, for obvious reasons.

Now, can everybody wise up and get back to talking about Tiernan Locke?

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

What Vaughters said was my point. Now we can move on since the Sky Defense League has accepted that I was right.

Can you provide some more detail as to what Sky's legal action was going to be, please? I'm still unclear as to how Wiggo could be extracted from his Garmin contract for 2010 other than by Sky making JV an offer he couldn't refuse.

The following quote from Winston Churchill covers the Garmin position quite well, I think:

“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"

Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "

Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"

Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”

Or put another way, when Wiggo said he wanted to ride for Sky in 2010, the only outcome Garmin were interested in was to maximise the amount Sky had to shell out.

 

[thehog]

Please. Stop digging. Hog and you are simply wrong on this.

From the Bosman ruling itself -

leading to the judgement...

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:61993CJ0415:EN:HTML#MO

My emphases, for obvious reasons.

Now, can everybody wise up and get back to talking about Tiernan Locke?

Not so fast.

The Court reconfirmed its earlier ruling that participation in sporting events and competitions by professional players should be subject to those freedoms, as such participation is the essential purpose of the players’ activity and any restrictions imposed on it should also be considered as restrictions on the players’ employment prospects.

Similarly, when referring to the specificities of sport in the Bosman ruling, the Court confirmed that the free movement of workers, which is one of the fundamental freedoms of the Community, cannot be restricted by a Member State by using the powers resulting from Article 151 (former Article 128), paragraph 1, EC which defines the Community’s obligation to respect national and regional cultural diversity.

The abovementioned general principles fully apply to the provision of services. As a consequence, since under the first paragraph of Article 50 services are considered to be services within the meaning of the Treaty if they are normally provided for remuneration, Article 49 may apply to sporting activities and to the rules laid down by sports associations.

The Court has added (Bosman) that the general abolition of restrictions on freedom to provide services should be observed regardless of the source of the restrictions (i.e. regardless of whether they are put forward by State authorities or not). Moreover, activities performed in the context of the provision of services must be subject to the same principle of non-discrimination as those performed in the framework of an employment contract.

http://ec.europa.eu/sport/white-paper/swd-annex-ii-sport-and-internal-market-freedoms_en.htm

 

[martinvickers]

Not so fast.







http://ec.europa.eu/sport/white-paper/swd-annex-ii-sport-and-internal-market-freedoms_en.htm

NONE of which is relevant to the point in hand. It really couldn't be clearer in the judgment Hog. Bosman applies to end of contract. End of.

 

[thehog]

It's fairly clear the before and after situation of Bosman in league transfers.

Before The Bosman Ruling:

In England if a player wanted to transfer clubs they had to put in a written transfer request, however if the club refused this the player had no choice but to stay with them as long as they maintained paying the amount of wages they did in the previous contract. This meant if clubs didn't necessarily need you but didn't want you going to another club they would simply ‘keep hold of you' or if you signed your first professional contract as a eager youth player and then became a indispensible player the club could simply keep hold of you and pay you the wages you had before you became an established player. This was the point of the system; it stopped richer clubs claiming all the best players and kept players wages down.

This system was obviously a ticking time bomb and in 1960, George Eastham challenged the power which the clubs had. Eastham played for Newcastle United and made clear his desire to leave and put in several written requests all of which were declined by United. Eastham eventually left football as was his desire not to play in the north east, a year later Newcastle and Arsenal agreed a fee and Eastham moved to London, however Eastham pressed on with his case and took it to the High Court to test the ‘retain and transfer' policy in the eyes of law.

The decision of the High Court was to rule the ‘retain and transfer' system an ‘unreasonable restraint of trade'. It was decided that at the end of a players' contract if the club did not renew the contract the player was allowed to leave however if a new one was offered the player did not have a right to refuse as long as the contract was not less than the previous, this still left players feeling somewhat limited.

In England 1978 the freedom of contract was introduced this allowed players the option to refuse the offer of another contract, however if a new club wanted your services they would have to compensate your previous club. Tribunals were set up to determine the amount payable if clubs could not agree a suitable fee. Players and their agents were still not permitted to approach possible clubs to instigate a transfer; they had to wait to be approached.

After Bosman:

A decade had passed without football being affected by any new legislation until the Bosman ruling [2]. Jean-Marc Bosman football player in the Jupiter league in Belgium for RFC Liege wanted to move to France and play for Dunkerque however using the cross-border transfer ruling Liege wanted a payment, Dunkerque were not willing to pay the sum of money RFC Liege wanted so the deal fail through and subsequently Bosman was relegated from the first team causing his wages to decrease. Bosman took court action against the European Football authorities, RFC Liege and the Belgian Football authorities; he argued that payment of transfer fees for free agents conflicted with EU citizen's right to free movement within employment.

The case took five years to be settled as each ruling was appealed; finally it reached the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg. Bosman sued on grounds of restraint of trade and argued that FIFAs Article 17 breached this and was in fact illegal. The court ruled in favour of Bosman as the system, as it was constituted, placed a restraint on freedom of movement of workers and was prohibited by Article 39 of the EU treaty of Rome [3]. As a result the European Union demanded that regulations concerning players' transfers and limitations on foreign players be amended almost immediately [4].

This ruling meant Bosman and every other EU footballer were free to negotiate deals to any other EU based team after their current contracts expired, they were also allowed to sign pre-contract deals with other clubs if they had six months remaining on their current deals. This ruling also stopped UEFA imposing quotas on how many foreign players are allowed to play in a team at any one time. At the time UEFA were imposing a quota on their European Cup competitions that only allowed three non nationals in a team on match days. However these quotas were not fully outlawed, it could not be used to restrict the amount of non EU players on a match day team.

http://www.lawteacher.net/sports-law/essays/the-bosman-ruling.php#ixzz2qDmSid9r

 

[thehog]

The Manchester United v Wigan comparison Wiggins made couldn't be more apt.

"It's a bit like trying to win the Champions League and to win the Champions League you go to Manchester United and I'm probably playing at Wigan at the moment. I'll probably have to make that step to do it," Wiggins told the BBC.

But most importantly:

Post Bosman Benefactors

British Success In European Cup Competitions

British clubs before had to field weakened teams in cup competitions as the UEFA quotas on foreign players included Scottish and Welsh players as well and meant British clubs were at a huge disadvantage.

After the ruling Manchester United won the 1999 Champions League featuring only five English players out of thirteen in the final.

Rich Clubs

Big wealthy clubs were now the only teams that could afford the best footballers as their massively inflated wages; used to keep them for leaving, left the small clubs unable to compete.

Instead of going to smaller league clubs in the same country for rising stars, the wealthy teams were broadening their horizons and bringing ‘out of contract' foreign stars and paying their agents rather than the smaller clubs for their youth.

http://www.lawteacher.net/sports-law/essays/the-bosman-ruling.php

 

[BroDeal]

Can you provide some more detail as to what Sky's legal action was going to be, please? I'm still unclear as to how Wiggo could be extracted from his Garmin contract for 2010 other than by Sky making JV an offer he couldn't refuse.

Could you provide some more detail as to why Vaughters does not know what the situation was? I know Sky loons make their own reality but to think JV does not know why he was forced to let Wiggins go rather than fight it out it court is a bit too much. If you are really curious then why don't you ask JV about national labor laws superseding UCI rules and what the legal costs would be to fight about it.

I am still unclear as to how you can possibly fail to understand the tactic of demanding a team let a rider's contract be bought out with the threat of a costly legal fight if they do not comply.

 

[BroDeal]

Feel free to move on.
As far as I can recal, nobody was challenging your statement, but if you want to claim your medal, go ahead.

Walrus and Grouper was and still is. He cannot wrap his head around threatening legal action to obtain something.

 

[BroDeal]

Please. Stop digging. Hog and you are simply wrong on this.

So what you are saying is that there was no way Wiggins could have broken his contract if JV did not agree and Sky's legal threats were baseless and would not have cost Garmin any money or effort to defend against.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I am still unclear as to how you can possibly fail to understand the tactic of demanding a team let a rider's contract be bought out with the threat of a costly legal fight if they do not comply.

I understand this perfectly well.

I thought you had knowledge of some cunning legal stunt that Sky could pull to extract Wiggo from his contract. Instead you simply highlight the "real world" situation that if someone you employ really want to go and work for someone else, you either compel them to stay, which is at best useless to you and at worst downright counterproductive/disruptive, or you let them go making the best of the situation. I clearly find this less shocking than you do. Just as it was pretty clear in early 2012 that JTL was a "wrong 'un", it was pretty clear after the 2009 Tour that Sky had to sign Wiggo and it was going to cost them an arm and a leg to get him out of his Garmin contract.

I do think JV is over-egging the scale of the legal "battle" required to keep Wiggo on the payroll, as Wiggo's contract with Garmin would predate anything he might sign with Sky and if two employment contracts exist with no documentation of the termination of the earliest (as would be the case if Wiggo had simply signed for Sky) then the earliest would prevail in a fairly straightforward court case.

Anyway, despite JV's protests, he got the best end of the deal by a country mile - being paid £2m for not having the 2010 version of Wiggo on his roster!